Appeal No. 1997-4452
Application No. 08/653,978
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over
Hassett. Claims 1-14 and 16-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hassett in view of Kang.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 19, mailed May 23, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 18, filed Feb. 3, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 20, filed Jul. 23, 1997) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellant argues that the answer does not address the claim limitation with respect
to “forming mezzanine outline data defining a second plot of the desired outline, upwardly
scaled from the target outline data onto a mezzanine grid . . .” as it relates to a showing of
anticipation. (See reply brief at pages 2-4.) We agree with appellant. The examiner
maintains the rejection and uses the terms “obviousness and triviality” along with “level of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007